Rape
isnt about sex! Thats what feminists proclaim.
And theyve declared it so continuously and persuasively
over the last few decades, most of our society have come to believe
it. The fact is, its not trueits a myth.

Rape
used to be considered an act of sexual assaultsexual
being the operative wordperpetrated by a man of weak moral
character and criminal inclination. But this commonsense truth
has been replaced with a politically-motivated myth that has had
long-reaching, negative effects on both rape victims and society.

The
politicization of rape, and the denial of truth it required, was
spearheaded by feminists in the early 1970s. Since then theyve
worked diligently to transform the way society views rape. Specifically,
feminists want rape to be seen as a politically motivated crime
rather than a sexually motivated one. And, to a significant extent
theyve been successful in their effort.

Susan
Brownmiller first popularized the politicized view of rape in
her 1975 book Against Our WillMen, Women and Rape. The back
cover of Brownmillers feminist tome boldly states it
[rape] is not a crime of lust but of violence and power.
Brownmillers contention, however, as well as the rape-isnt-about-sex
myth it helped propagate, had more to do with ideological goals
and political expediency than logic and scientific fact.

The
feminists re-defining of rape was, in part, a philosophical
necessity because of their belief in the interchangeability of
personal and political experiences (i.e., the personal is political).
But there were other reasons as well.

Feminisms
political redefinition of rape was driven by three basic ideological
tenets, and, more critically, by one strategic decision.

First
is feminisms ideological belief in secular creation,
a view held by many on the left that presumes man is born a blank
slate, only becoming that which his culture teaches him to become.
Hence, rapists are societal creations whose tendencies can be
eradicated once the culture of rape is eradicated.
Next is feminisms ideological belief that all male-female
interactions must, by definition, be viewed through the lens of
power and domination. Naturally then, rape also must be seen through
this distorted prism. Third is the feminists denial of any
difference between male and female sexuality, because, in their
lexicon, different means inferior. Thus, since these feminist
women couldnt identify in themselves a sexual urge to rape,
then rape by men must also be other than sexually motivated. Finally,
and most importantly, feminists strategically concluded that if
rape was perceived as motivated only by sex, then
it would be of limited political value, but if instead rape was
seen as motivated by male desire to dominate and control women,
then it could be used as a powerful political tool for radical
cultural change. Specifically, feminists decided that if they
could convince society that male domination was the rapists
true motivation, then the end of rape would necessarily require
an end to the traditional patriarchal culture said to support
that domination. Rape would become the symbolic sword that radical
feminists hoped would help them slay what they perceived as the
evil dragon of traditional culturetheir ultimate
sociopolitical objective.

But
feminisms ultimate sociopolitical objective is tragically
ironic, because it is living in a traditional patriarchal family
that most protects young women from the likelihood of rape, and
young men from the likelihood of becoming rapists. To put it simply,
a young womans vulnerability to rape is greatly reduced
if she lives with a father or husband, and a young man is far
less likely to become a rapist if he grows up with a father in
his home. Yet radical feminists apparently wont allow this
truth to impinge upon their political agenda. Because, to paraphrase
nationally syndicated radio talk show host Dennis Prager, feminists
psychological animus towards men, more than their love and care
of women, is what most ignites their sociopolitical passions.

Societys
passions, however, must be ignited by truth. Even though the raping
behavior of a specific individual likely involves a complex intertwining
of motivations, the one common and overriding motivation of all
rapists is sexual. So lets examine some commonsense and
empirical truths about rape that debunk the feminist rape-isnt-about-sex
myth and support the contention that rape is about sex.

First,
rape is universal; its universal across time, across cultures
and societies, and even across many species. This fact is clearly
validated by data in biologist Randy Thornhill and anthropologist
Craig T. Palmers book A Natural History of Rape: Biological
Bases of Sexual Coercion. Specifically, Thornhill and Palmers
documentation supports the contention that no rape-free human
society has ever existed and that many non-human animal species
do engage in raping behaviors. If rape were an act promoted or
encouraged by specific patriarchal or political environments,
as feminists assert, its inconceivable that rape would be
found in all societies throughout recorded time. Similarly, if
rape were an act solely dependent upon patriarchal cultural learning,
one would find it difficult to explain the prevalence of raping
behaviors among animal species (other than homo-sapiens) without
such a cultural influence. Rapes universality thus emphasizes
the point that rape is natural, though obviously not
good, and that it isnt created by any particular sociopolitical
environment.

Second,
the behaviors and motives of rapists are comparable to that of
other criminal types and, when analyzed in this straightforward
manner, the sexual motivation of rapists becomes apparent. Consider
this. If a criminal sees your money and wants it, he takes it.
If a criminal sees your car and wants it, he takes it. If a criminal
sees you and wants you sexually, he takes you. These are amongst
the immoral tendencies of criminalsthey take what they want
with a callous disregard for their victims. If you ponder the
fundamental motivation behind these various criminal acts, a parallel
analogy holds true. The mugger is motivated by his desire for
your money, the car thief by his desire for your car, and the
rapist by his desire for you sexually. The primary motives of
all criminal types, including rapists, are easily discernableno
conspiratorial explanations are necessary.

Third,
most rapists use only enough force to accomplish their goal of
sexual access. If a rapists goal was other than sex, such
as a desire to inflict violence upon his victim, why do most rapists
not inflict high degrees of physical injuries on their victims?
They certainly have the opportunity to do so. In 1991, Lee Ellis
of Minot State University reported that studies of date
rapists clearly demonstrate that these men try many tactics first
(i.e., encouraging intoxication, professing love, verbally pressuring)
before they resort to physically coercive tactics. Based on these
particular facts it must be concluded that, at least for date
rapists, a desire to have sex is the motivating factor, and only
after exhausting less coercive tactics did these rapists resort
to physical domination. As an aside, a small minority of rapists
are sadistic and therefore are additionally motivated by a desire
to violently aggress against, dominate, and humiliate their victims.
But sadistic rapists are the exception and not the rule and are
readily differentiated from most rapists by their tendency to
mete out more violence than is necessary to subdue their victim.
The majority of rapists, however, both stranger and date,
use only enough aggression to accomplish their sexual goal. This
is where feminists and others have become confused;
theyve obscured the distinction between the tactics used
and the goals sought during rape. For the vast majority of rapists,
aggression and control are simply the means to the end, the end
being sexual access.

Fourth,
a desire for sexual access is the only motive underlying rape
thats both necessary and sufficient. In contrast to this
assertion, Palmer and Thornhill point out that the feminist theory
of rape holds that its a non-sexual motive that is both
necessary and sufficient. But are any of the motives feminists
posit (i.e., political oppression, violent domination, control,
etc.) both necessary and sufficient? Ask yourself the following
questions (although you can substitute any motivation for the
one chosen as an example): Is it necessary for a man to have a
desire to politically oppress a woman before he can rape her?
Is a rapists political motive, in the absence of any sexual
motive, sufficient for a rape to occur? The answer to both of
these questions is no!

On
the other hand, it is necessary for a man to have some type of
sexual desire before he can rape. And a rapists sexual motive,
even in the absence of all other motives, is sufficient for a
rape to occur. Some desire for sexual access is always necessary
during rape and is even sufficient unto itself; no other motive
is both.

Fifth,
demographic data on rapists and rape victims point to a sexual
motive underlying rape. The majority of rapists are men between
their teens and 20s, a time of life during which men are the most
sexually driven. Next, consider the fact that the majority of
rape victims are between the ages of 16 and 24, the age group
in which women are considered the most sexually attractive. The
result of this analysis is straightforward; the men who are most
sexually driven are the ones most likely to rape and theyre
most likely to rape women who are generally considered to be the
most sexually attractive. Additionally, according to data in Thornhill
and Palmers book A Natural History of Rape, rapists are
more likely to engage in penile-vaginal intercourse, as well as
in multiple acts of intercourse, when the victim is in this most-sexually-attractive
age category. Coincidence? Does anyone really believe that if
a rapist were offered a roomful of women from which he could select
a rape victim, that every women in that room (old and young, ugly
and beautiful, thin and fat) would have an equal chance of being
selected? Of course not!

Sixth,
most rapists themselves say that sex was the motivating factor
underlying their crimes. Professor Lee Ellis of Minot State University
wrote, Even among rapists who victimize strangers, self-reports
have given little indication that their real objective is to dominate
their victims (or women generally), except to the extent that
doing so aids in gaining copulatory access. Thornhill and
Palmer concur with Professor Ellis and specifically mention a
doctoral dissertation authored by S. Smithyman that found 84%
of rapists reported that sex, in whole or part, was the motivating
force behind their actions. Contradictory research, often referred
to by feminists, which claims that rapists report power and control
as their motivation, frequently contain serious flaws. For example,
many were done with incarcerated rapists, or other rapists whod
already been re-educated to give the correct
response, while still others were done with rapists who may have
believed that proclaiming a non-sexual motive was more likely
to lead to their being deemed enlightened and thus cured.
Although self-reporting is by definition biased, the least confounded
proclamations by rapists supports the contention that sex is the
driving force behind the act of rape.

Finally,
and perhaps most empirically supportive of the hypothesis that
sex is the fundamental motivation behind rape, are the results
of surgical and chemical castration research.

John
Bradford, M.D. authored a chapter in Sexual Deviance: Theory,
Assessment, and Treatment where he summarized results of surgical
castration research. Although surgical castration studies are
unreplicatable today due to ethical considerations,
they are theoretically important because, as Bradford writes,
surgical castrations mechanism of action is
the reduction of plasma testosterone, the principal hormone for
the maintenance of sexual behavior in males and the hormone involved
in sexual drive. Surgical castration studies therefore can
shed considerable light on the degree to which a rapists
sex drive is involved in his raping behavior. Bradford reviewed
several studies that examined both pre- and post-surgical castration
recidivism rates of sexual deviants, mostly rapists and child
molesters. The results of these studies (which included large
numbers of subjects over long periods of time) reported significant
reductions in sex offender recidivism rates ranging from more
than 70% precastration to under 5% postcastration. Regardless
of how one looks at it, these are truly impressive success rates
and do indeed offer illuminating clarity.

A
fair amount of research has also analyzed the effects of chemical
castration on rapists and other sexual offenders. Chemical castration
works similarly to surgical castration through its impact on male
sexual hormone levels. Professor Lee Ellis wrote that Various
[chemical castration agents] have been shown to reduce testosterone
and thereby diminish self-reported libido in men including
men involved in various sex offenses. Thornhill and Palmer
described results of other long-term chemical castration studies
specifically done with rapists and wrote there is considerable
evidence to suggest that [chemical castration agents] reduce sexual
crimes. John Bradford summarized the whole of chemical castration
research by writing Long-term outcome studies have shown
that [chemical castration] reduces sexual offender recidivism
and compares favorably with the surgical castration studies.

Results
of both the surgical and chemical castration research demonstrate
that when the sexual drive of rapists is dramatically reduced,
the likelihood that they will rape again is dramatically reduced.
Sexual drive must therefore be considered the motivating force
underlying the behavior of those rapists.

Ashamedly,
most feminists do not support the use of any type of castration
for rapists. This isn't surprising because to support castration
would necessitate admitting that rape is sexually driven. This
incredible fact once again points out that radical feminists allow
their ideological agenda to trump scientific evidenceeven
if the application of that science would help protect other women
from rape.

But
what of the evidence gathered by feminists and other
so-called social scientists in support of their rape-isntabout-sex
hypothesis? Two psychology professors at the University of Texas
in Austin, Del Thiessen and Robert Young, decided to take a look.
Professors Thiessen and Young analyzed the bulk of this literature
and reported their findings in a 1994 issue of the journal, Society.
Their analysis of 1,610 abstracts of sexual coercion studies (with
sexual coercion defined as rape, date rape, acquaintance rape,
sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and incest) published between
1982 and 1992, revealed unscientific and politically biased studies.
For instance, Thiessen and Young reported that only 10 percent
of the studies they analyzed had sought to uncover the causes
or motivations of sexual coercion, often because the cause
(i.e., male oppression) had been assumed, though not proven. They
also found that only 1.5 percent of the studies examined had even
applied a statistical test to a research question. And, significant
due to their near complete absence (.002 percent), were studies
that addressed biological issues because, as the authors noted,
biological theories are considered taboo in the feminist world
because they call into question foundational, ideological tenets
of feminism. Perhaps most tragic was Thiessen and Youngs
observation that little or no progress had been made in understanding
sexual coercion because of the unscientific nature of the overwhelming
majority of studies in this area.

In
a scathing summary of their analysis, Theissen and Young wrote
The possibility exists that feminist interests enforce the
orientation of published studies and reflects the political
perspectives of its advocates. There is a near-total disregard
for rigorous testing of hypotheses, quantification of data and
possible biological mechanisms. Many studies appear anti-scientific
in conception, execution, and interpretation. But in the
politicized arena of womens issues, social expressions
are valued beyond scientific progress.

Theissen
and Youngs comprehensive analysis revealed the fact that
the vast majority of sexual coercion studies are more ideological
proselytizing than they are scientific analysis of research hypotheses.
Charles Leslie of the University of Delaware made similar observations
when he wrote of the social sciences in general, Non social
scientists generally recognize the fact that the social sciences
are mostly ideological, and that they have produced in this century
a very small amount of scientific knowledge. Our claim
to being scientific is one of the main intellectual scandals of
the academic world. So not only have feminists and their
social science compatriots blurred the line between the personal
and the political, theyve also blurred the line between
ideology and science. This blurring may be good for promoting
the feminist agenda but its anathema to scientific discovery
and truth finding.

When
the commonsense and empirical evidence concerning rape motivation
are examined in their entirety, without the distorting lens of
a political agenda, its quite difficult to conclude that
rape is anything but an act principally motivated by sex. This
conclusion is not good or badits just inescapably
true!

Its
obvious, then, that radical feminists arent believers in
truth; theyre true believers. Even though routinely
confronted with contradictory logic and objective data concerning
the motivation of rapists, the feminists fanatic faith never
seems to falter. Thats because their faith, like that of
all true believers, emanates emotionally and psychologically
rather than intellectually. Moreover, as radicals, these feminists
believe that their end justifies their means. Hence, if erroneous
myths must be promulgated in order to bring an end to the traditional
patriarchal culture they despise, then so be it.

The
goal of a moral society, as opposed to that of radical feminists,
must be the search for truth. This is why our society cant
allow the feminist sociopolitical agenda to blind us to the fundamental
truth of the causes and motivation underlying rape. Rape is not
a political act of male domination and patriarchal control, as
feminists conspiratorially allege. Its a heinous act rooted
in sexual desire thats perpetrated by an immoral, criminally-inclined
individual.

Radical
feminists, and misguided others, obviously have the right to despise
traditional culture and to wish to vanquish it. But, like the
rest of us, they must make their case in an up-front manner, employing
intellectual and moral persuasion and not, as theyve been
doing for nearly three decades, through the backdoor with fear-mongering,
gender-baiting, and pseudo-scientific mythmaking. Its long
past time to debunk once and for all the destructive rape-isnt-about-sex
myth propagated by radical feminists and shed much needed light
on what appears to be their real agendathe toppling of traditional
culture.